Considering Paine's critique of Christianity, we see he well
upholds the Holy Spirit for reason, honesty, and integrity as he opposes the
utterly corrupt, anti-Christ Vatican officialdom and mystic doctrine styled in
Christianity, though Paine does make an egregious error as he totally overlooks
the actual story-line to Christian literature, esp. for the dialectic of Christ
(= truth, Gosp. JOHN 14:6) vs. Pharisaic satanism and lies (JOHN 8:44),
Christian truth necessarily founded in Aristotelian objectivity vs. satanic
(extreme) subjectivism. Thus Paine fails for the substance of Christian
literature, entirely pre-occupied w. method (reason vs. mysticism/superstition).

Paine failed to see, as Martin Luther did not fail, the Vatican
officialdom had become simply another and/or new Pharisaic establishment,
mystic, subjectivistic, hence satanic, an enemy of Holy Spirit of reason,
honesty, integrity, which reason, Paine upheld so nobly.

So regarding the
full and proper philosophic task and analysis, Paine fell short, seeing only to
method (reason vs. mysticism), failing for the basic substance, the metaphysical
premise of objective reality vs. Pharisaic (extreme) subjectivism.

Most
interesting then is that present culture and society continues for this complete
failure, as of Paine's, for Christian philosophy and substance, so many people
imagining that Christianity and Judaism are mere variations/versions of one
another rather than ABSOLUTE OPPOSITES and Hegelian-style
anti-theses.

Further, for Paine also the Christian lesson for ethics is
lost, so many people believing, evidently, Christianity preaches surrender,
passivity, even suicidal defeatism, as for example, Nietzsche--thus the horrific
misconception of society which only benefits satanists who now so much control
and dominate the society, the central-bankers who want to genocide the people
and are quite well on their way to success by the looks of things.

But
the real Christianity is still well capable of resurrection, though it will
probably require a back-ground of horrendous tragedy to supply motivation for
the people of USA if not inspiration.

So if we compare the two critics of
establishment Christianity, Tom Paine and Martin Luther, we see Paine well
upheld the Holy Spirit for Christian rationalist method, though he mistakenly
imagined mysticism/subjectivism was part of the real, proper Christian
substance. Luther saw further to the substance, how Christianity had become
corrupt and Pharisaic. But Luther didn't see all the way for proper Christian
substance and analysis, unfortunately.

Heidegger was yet another who
strove for a great macro-analysis of Christianity in philosophic terms, and his
failure was instructive, along similar lines to Nietzsche. But Paine surely did
the best job, most useful and informative for humanity and society, so
outstanding for method, even if failing for that basic substance.

I'm
glad I studied Homer who provided the very best comparison for aesthetic
literature by which to grasp and assess our dear Christianity. Thus Paine was a
failure, everything considered, but instructive and informative nonetheless,
much like Luther and Nietzsche, Nietzsche so entertaining.